DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY *EC 1165-2-217 US Army Corps of Engineers CECW Washington ...

71 Pages·2017·1.06 MB·English

by  John Clarkson

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY *EC 1165-2-217
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CECW Washington, D.C. 20314-1000

Circular
No. 1165-2-217 20 February 2018

EXPIRES 31 MARCH 2020
Water Resources Policies and Authorities
REVIEW POLICY FOR CIVIL WORKS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Page

1. Purpose……………………………………………...………………………………………….1
2. Applicability…………...………………………………………………………………............1
3. Distribution Statement……………...………………………………………………………….1
4. References ...………………………..………………………………………………………….1
5. Policy……………...…………………………………………………………………………...2
6. Background…………………………..………………………………………………………..4
7. The Review Plan………………………..……………………………………………………..4
8. District Quality Control/Quality Assurance………………………………………………….13
9. Agency Technical Review…………………………..………………………………….……20
10. Independent External Peer Review………...………………………………………………..33
11. Type I IEPR………………………………………………………………………………….34
12. Type II IEPR Safety Assurance Review…….………..……………………………………..44
13. Special Cases……..………………………….……..……………………………………….53
14. Policy and Legal Compliance Reviews…….……..………………………………………...55
15. Risk-Informed Reviews…..…………….………….……… ……………………………….55
16. Administration……………………………..……………… ……………………………….57
17. Implementation…………………………..………………………… ………………………58

APPENDICES

Appendix A References…………………………………………………………..………….A-1
Appendix B Acronyms………………………………………………………….....................B-1
Appendix C Roles and Responsibilities……………………………………………………...C-1

*This circular supersedes EC 1165-2-214, dated 15 December 2015.
i
EC 1165-2-217
20 Feb 2018
Glossary……………….….…………………………………………………….…..…...Glossary-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Civil Works Review Products…………………………………………………………2
Figure 2. Civil Works Stages of Development and Review……………………………………..3
Figure 3. Sample MSC Commander’s RP Approval Memorandum……………………….…...12
Figure 4. Sample DQC Certification form………………………………………………….…..19
Figure 5. Sample ATR Completion / Certification form……………………………………….32

ii
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EC 1165-2-217
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CECW Washington, D.D. 20314-1000

Circular
No. 1165-2-217 20 February 2018

EXPIRES 31 MARCH 2020
Water Resource Policies and Authorities
REVIEW POLICY FOR CIVIL WORKS

1. Purpose. This Circular establishes an accountable, comprehensive, life-cycle review strategy
for Civil Works products by providing a seamless process for review of all Civil Works projects
from initial planning through design, construction, and Operation, Maintenance, Repair,
Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R). It provides the procedures for ensuring the quality
and credibility of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) decision, implementation, and
operations and maintenance documents and work products. This Circular puts quality and
comprehensive review on equal footing with cost and schedule compliance. It presents a
framework for establishing the appropriate level of independence of reviews, as well as detailed
requirements to accomplish this, including documentation and dissemination. This Circular
addresses Office of Management and Budget (OMB) peer review requirements under the
"Information Quality Act" (Public Law [P.L]) 106-554) and the Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review by the Office of Management and Budget (referred to as the "OMB
Peer Review Bulletin”). It also provides guidance for the implementation of Independent
External Peer Review (IEPR) according to both Sections 2034 and 2035 of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 (P.L. 110-114), as amended by Sections 1044 and 3028 of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 (P.L. 113-121).
Feedback is requested to improve follow-on policy and guidance related to Civil Works
Reviews. For improvement in the next version of this guidance please send concerns or issues to
[email protected].

2. Applicability. This Circular applies to all USACE Headquarters (HQUSACE) elements,
major subordinate commands (MSCs), districts, laboratories, centers of expertise, and field
operating activities that have civil works planning, engineering, design, construction, and
operations and maintenance (O&M) responsibilities. (See Paragraph 14 for further clarification
on HQUSACE policy and legal review.)

3. Distribution Statement. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

4. References. References are provided as Appendix A.
EC 1165-2-217
20 Feb 2018
5. Policy.

a. It is the policy of USACE that all of its Civil Works products will undergo an open,
dynamic, and rigorous review process. Technical, scientific, engineering, and other information
that is relied upon to support recommendations in decision documents or form the basis of
designs (at any scale), specifications, and/or O&M requirements and/or other assessments will be
reviewed to ensure technical quality and practical application.

b. A review performed outside the “home” district must be completed on all decision and
implementation documents, unless otherwise specified. Review approaches will be scalable and
customized for each effort, commensurate with the level of complexity and relative importance
of the actions being supported. All decisions on the types and scopes of review required on a
particular product will be risk-informed, as described in Paragraph 15, and documented.

c. Depending on the particular circumstances, reviews may be managed entirely within
USACE or in various combinations with external parties. In cases requiring the most
independence, the management of the review will be performed by an organization other than
USACE and will involve independent experts. Commanders must be actively involved in
establishing effective review approaches for all work products. The quality management
procedures of each MSC, as contained in its Quality Management Plan, must comply with the
principles of this Circular.

d. All civil works planning, engineering, and O&M products must undergo review. As
illustrated in Figure 1, all products must undergo District Quality Control/Quality Assurance
(DQC/QA), described in Paragraph 8. A subset of these work products will undergo Agency
Technical Review (ATR), described in Paragraph 9. Smaller subsets of the ATR group will
undergo one or both types of IEPR described in Paragraphs 10 through 12. For simplicity, HQ
Policy Compliance Review and Legal Certification are not shown. See Figure 2 for a broad
overview of civil works stages of development and review requirements.

Figure 1. Civil Works Review Products
2
EC 1165-2-217
20 Feb 2018
w
e
i
v
e
R
d
n
a

t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
D
f
o

s
e
g
a
t
S

s
k
r
o
W

l
i
v
i
C
2.

e
r
u
g
i
F

3
EC 1165-2-217
20 Feb 2018
6. Background.

a. The mission of the USACE Civil Works program is to serve the public by providing the
Nation with quality and responsive management of the Nation’s water resources. USACE
review processes are essential to confirming the planning analyses, optimization of design,
project safety, reliability, and quality of the decisions and products USACE provides to the
Nation. The following reports demonstrate the importance of external peer review in improving
USACE plans, projects, and programs:

(1) Review Procedures for Water Resources Project Planning, report of the National
Research Council (NRC 2002);

(2) Decision-Making Chronology for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane
Protection Project, report of the (USACE 2008);

(3) Performance Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane
Protection System, final report of the Interagency Performance Evaluation Taskforce (USACE
2006);

(4) The New Orleans Hurricane Protection System: Assessing Pre-Katrina Vulnerability and
Improving Mitigation and Preparedness, report of the Committee on New Orleans Regional
Hurricane Protection Project appointed by the National Academy of Sciences (CNORHPP 2009).

b. The USACE Civil Works review process is based on the following fundamental
principles:

(1) Consistent review policy must be applied to all Civil Works work products.

(2) Peer review contributes to improved quality of work.

(3) Reviews must be scalable, deliberate, life-cycle, and concurrent with normal business
processes.

7. The Review Plan.

a. The Review Plan (RP) is the foundational document that presents the endorsed/approved
documentation of accountability and the steps to produce a credible product, consistent with this
Circular. The RP is also the basis for compliance with the Information Quality Act requirement
to confirm and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including
statistical information) disseminated by the agency. To the extent practical, reviews should not
extend the schedule but should be embedded in the development of the product. DQC reviewers
(including Office of Counsel) must be involved at key decision points and should be included
throughout project development. The RP describes the scope of review for the current and/or
4
EC 1165-2-217
20 Feb 2018
upcoming phase of work (feasibility, pre-construction engineering and design [PED],
construction, etc.) and is a component of the Project Management Plan (PMP) or Program
Management Plan (PgMP). All appropriate levels of review (DQC, ATR, IEPR, policy and
legal, biddability, constructability, operability, environmental, and sustainability [BCOES])
should be included in the RP and any levels not included will require documentation in the RP of
the risk-informed decision not to undertake that level of review (as discussed in Paragraph 15).
The endorsement by the Review Management Organization (RMO) and the MSC Commander’s
approval of the RP are the essential first steps in product accountability, and are required to
assure that the plan complies with the principles of this Circular and the MSC’s Quality
Management Plan and that all elements of the command have agreed to the review strategy.
Like the PMP, the RP is a living document and must evolve with the study to reflect the proper
scale and scope of the anticipated reviews. It is the responsibility of the Project Manager to
implement the RP and validate the execution and appropriate documentation of each step.

(1) The RP provides the primary opportunity to scale reviews appropriate to project size,
level of complexity, and level of risk throughout the project life cycle. In addition to the
“Charge” discussed in Paragraph 7.i. (which will indicate the specific advice sought), the RP will
identify the most important skill sets needed in each review (which will dictate the number of
reviewers), and will also identify the objective of the review, thus setting the appropriate scale
and scope of review for a product. A RP must be detailed enough to assess the necessary level
and focus of review, including potential challenges, use of Architect-Engineers (A-Es), models
and data to be used, model certification needs, etc. RPs must anticipate and define the
appropriate level of review from the very start of the effort, based upon a preliminary assessment
of project risks and their magnitude.

(2) To the maximum extent practicable, reviews will be scheduled and conducted early in
the process to avoid or minimize any delays in completion of the study or project. The PMP or
PgMP must list all review requirements (in the RP that is appended to the PMP or PgMP), costs,
and schedules as integrated features of the overall project execution. This is particularly
pertinent in the case of IEPR. The following guidance is essential to timely review:

(a) The project budget will include adequate funds for all necessary reviews.

(b) The project schedule will provide sufficient time for all reviews, and at the appropriate
points in the schedule.

(c) For decision documents, all required reviews, with the exception of final USACE policy
compliance review, will be completed before the District Commander signs the report. The
USACE policy compliance review will be completed before approval by the appropriate
HQUSACE office.

(d) In developing a RP, the home district will provide an opportunity for public comment by
posting the approved RP on its public website. This is not a formal comment period and there is
5
EC 1165-2-217
20 Feb 2018
no set timeframe for the opportunity for public comment. If and when comments are received,
the project delivery team (PDT) should consider them and decide if RP revisions are necessary.
This engagement will allow for a review approach responsive to the wide array of stakeholders
and customers, both within and outside the Federal government.

(e) Project managers will ensure that the P2 schedule for the project identifies the required
activities for both Type I IEPR and Type II IEPR, when required, including any meetings to be
held with the project team and the independent reviewers. The P2 schedule will also be
resourced for the various organizations involved in the review (DQC, ATR, RMO, IEPR
contractor, etc.).

b. Applicability. In general, all products or activities will be covered by a RP. For large
projects, whether in planning, design, construction, or an operating project, a single RP covering
all the various work associated with the project should be developed. However, when a product
generally covered under such an overarching RP involves complexities, controversy, or other
attributes that would require review beyond that envisioned in the overall RP, a separate RP is
required for that activity. For example, at an operational USACE reservoir, most routine
activities and their associated products, such as inspection reports, would be covered under an
overarching RP while other products such as major rehabilitation studies, dam safety
modification reports, activities requiring a separate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), etc.
would require individual RPs. Similarly, to ensure consistency, MSCs may develop
programmatic RPs for the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) that describe the regional
review process and also describe cases when an individual RP must be developed.
Programmatic RPs may be appropriate in other cases, such as work performed under regional
environmental infrastructure authorities. Prior to initiating RP development, the RMO should
coordinate with HQUSACE for guidance on whether a programmatic RP is appropriate.
Approval of all programmatic RPs (except for CAP, see 13.2.1) rests with the Director of Civil
Works (DCW), HQUSACE.

c. Responsibilities. The development of the RP is generally the responsibility of the PDT,
in concert with the RMO. The PDT is responsible for recommending the necessary type(s) of
reviews as well as the particular disciplines/expertise required, including an assessment by
district counsel on the scope of legal reviews. The RP will be published on the district’s public
internet site following review by district leadership/counsel, endorsement by the RMO and
signature approval by the MSC Commander. The district, MSC, or RMO should periodically
examine older RPs and invalidate them when appropriate and then require an updated RP.

d. Development of RPs.

(1) The RP will be prepared within the district or other USACE office responsible for the
project, in coordination with the appropriate RMO, and approved by the MSC Commander. For
prospective projects, an initial RP will be developed within the first 90 days after executing a
Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA). As the scope of the study is developed, the draft
6
EC 1165-2-217
20 Feb 2018
RP will be updated and presented at the Alternatives Milestone for a single phase planning study.
The RP will then be endorsed by the RMO and sent to the MSC for approval. The RP will be
revised prior to the completion of the feasibility phase to detail the reviews in subsequent phases.
The RP must be updated and re-approved by the MSC as the project moves through the PED and
Construction Phases. For projects not initiated in the planning phase, RPs must be developed at
the beginning of the work effort and be updated as appropriate.

(2) The RP is a living document and must be kept up-to-date, in coordination with the
MSC and RMO, to reflect the proper scale and scope of the anticipated reviews. The PDT will
update the RP to reflect minor changes as they occur without the need for re-approval. Re-
approval of RPs by the MSC will be required when there are significant changes, such as in the
level of review (i.e., if Type I or Type II IEPR is added to or deleted from the RP). Other
situations requiring RMO re-endorsement and MSC re-approval should be very limited but could
include significant changes in study/project scope (e.g., adding or subtracting a purpose, etc.).

e. Content of RPs. The following paragraphs identify and describe required content of a
RP.

(1) Overview. An overview should include the project title, purpose of the work product,
and designated points of contact (titles only) in the home district, MSC, and RMO, to whom
inquiries about the plan may be directed.

(2) Documentation of Issues/Risk. The RP should include a section that documents risk and
related issues, which should provide the following at a minimum:
(a) Documentation of risk-informed decisions (see Paragraph 15) on which levels of review
are appropriate for the product. This documentation is to include:
• The district Chief of Engineering’s assessment prior to RMO endorsement as to whether
there is a significant threat to human life associated with aspects of the study or failure of
the project or proposed projects. When appropriate, this should be done in consultation
with the Dam Safety Officer/Levee Safety Officer (when they are not the same person as
the Chief of Engineering).

• Basic background information on the project or study area, maps, satellite images, and
plan and cross-section views, to provide an overview for the PDT, RMO, review teams,
and vertical team (involving district, MSC, RMO, and HQUSACE members). The
documentation should briefly describe the project or study area with special emphasis on
the inherent risk(s) involved; should indicate whether existing conditions, failure of the
project, or future conditions would pose a significant threat to the environment or to
human life; identify the population at risk; the problem(s) the study/project is addressing;
the study/project goals and objectives; the description of the action, the timing of
7
EC 1165-2-217
20 Feb 2018
implementation/construction; and the estimated cost (or range of cost) for proposed
projects or the specific construction features for the portion of the project under review.

• Discussion of the risk during construction, which is especially important when modifying
an existing project; discussion of whether the level of service is compromised during
modifications; discussion of risk for cofferdams, overtopping risk, and other inherent
risks during construction, etc.

• Appropriate protection of sensitive or security related information such as detailed
drawings or information revealing infrastructure vulnerabilities. These items should be
placed in an appendix of the RP and removed prior to posting on the district’s website.

• A list of the anticipated deliverables/products that are expected to be technically
evaluated during study/project development and the schedule for their delivery.
(b) The discussions must be detailed enough to support the PDT, RMO, and vertical team
decisions on the appropriate level of review and types of expertise to be represented on the
various review teams.

The timing and sequence of the reviews (including deferrals). Refer to ER 1105-2-100, Planning
Guidance Notebook, Appendix H for further procedures on timing and sequence of public,
technical, legal, and policy reviews of feasibility studies and reports.

(3) How and when there will be opportunities for the public to comment on the study or
project to be reviewed.

(4) When significant and relevant public comments will be provided to the reviewers.

(5) A succinct description of the primary disciplines or expertise needed in the review.

(6) The anticipated number of reviewers for each review.

(7) Whether the public, including scientific or professional societies, will be asked to
nominate potential reviewers.

(8) A list of the models expected to be used in developing recommendations, and the model
certification/acceptance status of those models.

(9) A list of expected in-kind contributions to be provided by the sponsor.

(10) Whether a site visit will be required for members of ATR Team and/or IEPR Panel.

8